Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama calls for municipal broadband

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#181

Post by jdmichal »

redi90000 wrote: post #172
shmerl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

That site has... Interesting data. It seems to be granulated based on zip code. It shows, for mine:

1 cable provider

2 ADSL providers

It shows FiOS also, but I can almost guarantee that there is no residence within this zip code that can get it. So, the real question is, how much do you consider ADSL "broadband"?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#182

Post by deciplex »

ksk wrote: post #152
enraged_camel wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. But much of the technology and infrastructure the ISPs use today was once built by tax-payer money.

A ton of scientific research is done via government grants. Should we have no for-profit companies there too? No, that would be absurd.

We can have for-profit companies in those industries, sure, but if the taxpayer is footing the bill for some of the research, then some of the fruits of that research ought to go back to the taxpayer.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#183

Post by lettergram »

Yeah, I definitely want my government running my internet. Not only do they get to monitor all of my traffic (more/easier than they do now), but they also will be in charge of delivery.

I can already imagine it! My tax dollars paying for Comcast level quality service, at the same time I'll be receiving internet in the most "fair" way possible ("fair" being in quotes because who knows what legislation will be placed on it).

Yeah, I'm just looking forward to the day they enforce the whole Google-Verizon frequency band agreement. Or perhaps when they don't sell exclusive rights for fiber connections.

In all honesty, I'll take Comcast over the government any day of the week. At least Comcast has an incentive to make money (hopefully reducing corporate waste). The government will have far more bureaucratic bloat and either fund it with tax dollars or end up charging the same amount. I really loved how the healthcare system has been improved.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#184

Post by jzwinck »

ksk wrote: post #132
digikata wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. But if last-mile links are a natural monopoly (or at least demonstrably low competition markets), how do we get better broadband than we have now? We have data points from other nations that seem to indicate that publicly owned or open-access last-mile links create market conditions that deliver broadband more…

Okay, so you could to break down the ISP vertical into companies that only supply service and companies that only do the last-mile infrastructure. It would allow the government to regulate the industry without being involved in the supply side of things. One other option is to opt for a consumer ownership model where the each home pays for the bit of fiber that connects them to the neighborhood hub or w/e.

> break down the ISP vertical into companies

The UK did this with British Telecom (BT). In a word, it sucks. It creates confusion for consumers:

* "I get internet from Twinkle but they say they can't repair my line."

* "I signed up for service with Floyd's Internet but a truck showed up at my house that says Ben's Broadband."

* "Decker offered me fast fiber, but when I called to sign up, they said WestLane only has copper to my home and they aren't allowed to run the fiber."

The names have been changed to protect the guilty, but the experiences are real.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#185

Post by cbd1984 »

deciplex wrote: post #179
cbd1984 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because unlike companies, governments¹ can function long-term even if they don't balance budgets. Except that shouldn't matter if the private company can compete on technology and service. If your opponent has unlimited funds but the customer service policies of the DMV and the technological acumen of, uh, some very-non-technical government office of your choice, shouldn't you win?

The hidden assumption is that by favoring, or at least not opposing, municipal broadband, you are supporting the total ban of competing networks, subsidizing network infrastructure with property taxes, five-year plans, gulags, etc etc.

Hence my constant needling of the Free Market Fundamentalists.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#186

Post by shmerl »

redi90000 wrote: post #172
shmerl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

Something like DSL or satellite service is not comparable with others (it's too inferior). As well as a capped service is not comparable. Discarding all that you get something that is clearly a monopoly. Plus several companies which do offer something substantial but operate in collusion are essentially a monopoly anyway.

Real competition is for example Google Fiber or some other small ISP on the scene. That's when you starting getting 1 Gbps for less than $100. But such cases are quite rare still.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#187

Post by [deleted] »

bcheung wrote: post #176

Aren't we trading one monopoly for another? Not sure that is any better. Especially considering the track record of the post office or public education. There would need to be some way to allow competition so there is incentive to provide quality service.

[deleted]

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#188

Post by sanderjd »

curun1r wrote: post #180
justizin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten…

> it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Municipal broadband doesn't mean shutting out ISPs. If done right, it means that the municipalities own the last mile infrastructure and charge a per-customer rate to ISPs that serve residents. But what that does is significantly lower the bar for ISPs to offer service. It can cost millions of dollars to build out that infrastructure in a cit…

Thanks for explaining this important point. Competition outside of the last mile would be good for everyone, and the last mile infrastructure makes a lot of sense to run as a utility.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#189

Post by TTPrograms »

redi90000 wrote: post #173
jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

Which ISPs have monopolies exactly and in what city? Go to broadbandmap.gov and find me one.

1) Click "Explore the Maps".

2) Click "number of broadband providers" on bottom.

3) Set sliders to color places with 1 provider.

4) The huge areas of green across the US are monopolies.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#190

Post by [deleted] »

curun1r wrote: post #180
justizin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten…

> it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Municipal broadband doesn't mean shutting out ISPs. If done right, it means that the municipalities own the last mile infrastructure and charge a per-customer rate to ISPs that serve residents. But what that does is significantly lower the bar for ISPs to offer service. It can cost millions of dollars to build out that infrastructure in a cit…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN